Mohammad Fariuddin vs The State Of Telangana on 30 April, 2026

Telangana High Court

Mohammad Fariuddin vs The State Of Telangana on 30 April, 2026

   IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

                          AT HYDERABAD


       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


             CRIMINAL PETITION No.4114 of 2026


                          DATE: 30.04.2026


BETWEEN:


Mohammad Fariuddin and another


                                  .....petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2


                                   And


The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court for the State of Telangana

at Hyderabad and others.

                                         .....Respondent/complainant


                              ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in

C.C.No.209 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Manoranjan
2
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.4114 of 2026

Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 188, 171(E) of IPC and Section

123(1) of RP Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.11.2023, while

performing election surveillance duty as part of the Flying

Squad Team (FST) during the Telangana Legislative Assembly

elections, the complainant apprehended Accused No.1 near

Mujeeb Pan Shop, Medarabasti, Kothagudem, on credible

information that he was distributing money to voters to

influence them in favour of Accused No.2, a contesting

candidate. On interception, Accused No.1 allegedly confessed to

distributing cash on the instructions of Accused No.2, and an

amount of Rs.17,000/- along with voter lists was seized under a

panchanama in the presence of mediators. Based on the said

incident, a case in Crime No.231 of 2023 was registered for

offences under Sections 188 and 171(E) IPC and Section 123(1)

of the Representation of the People Act, and after investigation,

charge sheet was filed, which culminated in C.C. No.209 of

2025 before the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for

Excise Cases, Hyderabad.

3

SKS,J
Crl.P.No.4114 of 2026

3. Heard Sri K. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Ramachander

Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf

of the respondent – State. Though notice served upon

respondent No.3, none appeared on behalf of him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is

no prima facie material to attract the alleged offences and the

charge sheet is based on assumptions and inadmissible

confession and that the essential ingredients of Section 188 IPC

are not satisfied as there is no promulgated order or its wilful

disobedience. With regard to Section 171(E) IPC and Section

123(1) of the R.P. Act, it is submitted that mere recovery of cash

does not establish bribery in the absence of proof of offer or

acceptance by voters, and there is no material to show that

Accused No.1 acted as an agent of Accused No.2. He contended

that no independent witnesses are examined and the case is

based only on official witnesses, thereby rendering the

prosecution case weak and liable to be quashed as an abuse of

process of law.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the

petition, contending that the material collected during
4
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.4114 of 2026

investigation clearly establishes that Accused No.1 was caught

red-handed while distributing money to voters on the

instructions of Accused No.2 and that the seizure of cash and

voter lists, coupled with the statements of the complainant and

other witnesses, prima facie disclose the commission of

offences. He asserted that there is sufficient material to proceed

with trial and that the grounds raised by the petitioners are

matters of defence, which cannot be considered at the stage of

quash and prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned

counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it

appears that the petitioners was charged for the offences

punishable under Sections 188 and 171(E) of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 and Section 123(1) of R.P. Act. It is specifically

contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as

there is a bar under Section 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C., whereunder, a

written complaint has to be filed by the public

servant/authorized officer, the Police has to follow the same, but

the same is not followed in the present case. Further, at this

stage, it is imperative to note the relevant Sections, which are as

follows:

5

SKS,J
Crl.P.No.4114 of 2026

7. Section 188 of the I.P.C reads as follows:

Section 188: Disobedience to order duly promulgated
by public servant.

Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a
public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such
order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to
take certain order with certain property in his possession
or under his management, disobeys such direction,
shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause
obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction,
annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed,
be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which
may extend to one month or with fine which may extend
to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such
disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human
life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or
affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to six months,
or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees,
or with both.

Explanation: It is not necessary that the offender should
intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience
as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows
of the order which he disobeys, and that his
disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.

Illustration: An order is promulgated by a public
servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order,
directing that a religious procession shall not pass down
a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and
thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the
offence defined in this section”.

8. Section 195(i) (a) of Cr.P.C., reads as under:-
6

SKS,J
Crl.P.No.4114 of 2026

“(i) (a) of any offence punishable under Sections
172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860), or

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such
offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such
offence, except on the complaint in writing of the
public servant concerned or of some other public
servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;”

9. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, a perusal of

Section 188 of IPC makes clear that to take cognizance there

should be a written complaint and such complaint should be

filed either by the officer issuing such promulgation order or the

officer above his rank. Further, Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C., defines

complaint as allegations made orally or in writing to the

Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action on such

complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section

190 (1)(a) of Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, the procedure prescribed

under Section 200 of Cr.P.C has to be followed. Therefore, the

first information report, charge sheet and the order taking

cognizance on such charge sheet are without jurisdiction.
7

SKS,J
Crl.P.No.4114 of 2026

10. Further, it is significant to note the judgement of the

Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v.

Hermareddy 1, wherein in paragraph No.8, it is held as under:

“8. We agree with the view expressed by the
learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the
course of the same transaction an offence for which no
complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 196
(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence
for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under
that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to
split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused
for the offences not mentioned in Section 196 (1)(b) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld”

(Emphasis supplied)

11. In the instant case, a perusal of the charge sheet discloses

that the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offence

punishable under Section 188 of IPC including other penal

provisions i.e., 171(E) of IPC. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Hermareddy (supra) it is clear that if the

offences formed part of the same transaction of the offences

contemplated under Section 191 of Cr.P.C., it is not possible to

split up and hold the prosecution of accused for the other

offences. Further, upon a prima facie consideration of the

material on record, this Court observes that the essential

1
AIR 1981 SC 1417
8
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.4114 of 2026

ingredients of Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People

Act are not made out, inasmuch as there is no specific allegation

or material to show any direct or indirect offer or gratification by

the candidate or his authorized agent to induce any voter to vote

in his favour. In view of the above, the FIR culminating in

taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences stands vitiated.

Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the

petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law.

12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the

proceedings against the petitioners in C C.C.No.209 of 2025 on

the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class

for Excise Cases, Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad,

are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

stand closed.

_______________
K.SUJANA, J
Date: 30.04.2026
SAI